Birding and wildlife lens

LightPhonics

LightPhonics

Messages
70
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

What lens do you find pulling out for small birds and shy wildlife?
I'm just interested to know what focal length is needed for getting fairly close to small subjects when you don't have a hide etc.

Thankyou!
 
I use 400mm on 1.3 or 1.6 crop bodies and sometimes if conditions allow a teleconverter.

You still need to get pretty close with 400mm for small subjects like garden birds though.
 
The sigma 'bigma' 50-500mm has been my go-to lens for really getting in close, it's one of the cheapest 500mm options and obviously it's very versatile.
 
Do you think that a Sigma 100-300mm f4 with a 1.4x woul be long enough? My other option is the old Nikon 300 f4 with a 1.7x
 
I would consider 300mm on a crop body to be about the minimum. Keep in mind when adding TC's you loose AF performance.
W/ the D7100 only the central focus point is active/usable at F/8... W/ a f/4 lens and a 1.7 TC you'll be pretty close to that.

Of the options you are considering I think the 300mm f/4 w/TC's is your best option. But if the lighting is (very) good the Sigma 50-500 is no slouch.
 
I've got a 600mm on a crop body and often use a 1.4x and still often wish I had a bit more, I guess I'll have to brush up on my field craft
 
400mm f/4 DO on my crop 7D. I can just about get away with a 70-300L in my own garden.
 
I use a Sigma 150-500mm on my Sony a77 crop sensor camera and do very well with it and its not too expensive

Les (y)
 
I have an f4 500mm canon with 1.4 con and find this great, also have canon 100-400 and to be honest I'd suggest you go for the largest lens with best aperture, light will be an issue in my experience

Chris
 
I use the Sigma 150-500 on a Canon 60D so a 1.6 crop.

And as above, if I could get away with a 2x converter I would slap one on straight away, you can never be too close when it comes to small birds etc.

But in short, I love my Sigma 500. :)
 
For birds you need the longest lens that a) You can afford, and b) You can easily transport to where the birds are.
 
hollis_f said:
For birds you need the longest lens that a) You can afford, and b) You can easily transport to where the birds are.
Click to expand...

:agree:
c) Some people with "mega" lenses can't take better images than someone with a mid priced zoom :LOL:
 
Use CANON 400MM L /CANON 7D GIVING 1.6 CROP
GEORGE
 
LightPhonics said:
Do you generally find this long enough for average birds and deer etc? Also, how different is a 400mm to a 300mm?
Click to expand...

250 - 300 - 400 (simulated)


250%20300%20400%20mm.jpg
 
Currently I have a 55-300mm nikon lens, I'm going on a trip to Costa Rica next year and think I need a bit more reach, but budget isn't great so would either:
buy x1.4 kenko or
hire a 150-500mm Sigma
advantages of the first option would be weight however the current lens is quite slow to af
is the Sigma fast?
 
padders said:
Currently I have a 55-300mm nikon lens, I'm going on a trip to Costa Rica next year and think I need a bit more reach, but budget isn't great so would either:
buy x1.4 kenko or
hire a 150-500mm Sigma
advantages of the first option would be weight however the current lens is quite slow to af
is the Sigma fast?
Click to expand...

It will be a lot faster than the TC if you don't have a Nikon introduced in the last 2yrs. Any older Nikon will not AF at all @f/8. And the DX cameras that do (i.e. D7100) only have the central focus point still usable.
 
I have a 100-400 but am in the process of trying to get a 300mm 2.8 at a sensible price and pair it with a t/c.
 
jamie you are actually in a catch 22 situation ,the ideal combo for your camera would be a 300mm f4 plus a 1.7tc ,giving you a hand holdable 500mm lens ,however the use of the 1.7tc on a D7100 causes all sorts of problems to pop up as it will amplify any mistakes you make .
in fact the whole d7100 problems thing made me change back to canon .after two faulty bodies in a 8 week period i had simply had enough and i totally lost confidence in nikon .good luck in your quest but unless you have DEEEEEEEEEP pockets and a lot of patience your gonna struggle . the best choice might be either a nikon 80-400 vr mkii lens around £2000 + or a nikon 200-400mm vr at around £4000 +:bang::bang::bang:
 
Jamie,
Have you thought about a Sigma 300mm F2.8 & a Sigma 2 x convertor.. £1200 ish

On yours that will give you an effective 900mm @5.6 so AF will work perfectly.
 
LightPhonics said:
I get the feeling that 420mm will not be long enough...
Click to expand...

Give it a go and see how you get on.

Everybody strives for a little more reach however there are plenty of people who get amazing results by concentrating on their field skills.
 
I've just bought a used Nikon V1, and an adapter which allows me to use Nikon F-mount lenses on it.
Due to the small sensor on the V1, it has a crop factor of 2.7X. This means a 300mm f4 will give the same viewpoint as a 810mm whilst retaining it's max aperture.
So, an 810mm f4 !
For me, it's a cheap way of having a go at wildlife photography!!
 
I've just stuck masking tape over all of my sensor except for a 518x346 pixel rectangle in the middle. That gives it a crop factor of 16 - so my 300mm lens is now a 4800mm f2.8 !
 
the black fox said:
jamie you are actually in a catch 22 situation ,the ideal combo for your camera would be a 300mm f4 plus a 1.7tc ,giving you a hand holdable 500mm lens ,however the use of the 1.7tc on a D7100 causes all sorts of problems to pop up as it will amplify any mistakes you make .
in fact the whole d7100 problems thing made me change back to canon .after two faulty bodies in a 8 week period i had simply had enough and i totally lost confidence in nikon .good luck in your quest but unless you have DEEEEEEEEEP pockets and a lot of patience your gonna struggle . the best choice might be either a nikon 80-400 vr mkii lens around £2000 + or a nikon 200-400mm vr at around £4000 +:bang::bang::bang:
Click to expand...

Or the sigma 150-500 OS for about 600 quid :shrug:

To be honest i see very little logic in buying an f4 lens solely to then ad a tc - you might as well buy a cheaper but longer f5.6 lens and forget the TC and thus avoid the related problems
 
GHP said:
I've just bought a used Nikon V1, and an adapter which allows me to use Nikon F-mount lenses on it.
Due to the small sensor on the V1, it has a crop factor of 2.7X. This means a 300mm f4 will give the same viewpoint as a 810mm whilst retaining it's max aperture.
So, an 810mm f4 !
For me, it's a cheap way of having a go at wildlife photography!!
Click to expand...


tried that one last year when i was on nikon ,after doing lots of tests with the help of a pro -friend of mine ,we worked out that if you just cropped a image from a d7000 to the same size as a full frame image from the v1 you just end up with identical pictures ,its more a illusion of the mind than a reality ,same as the 1.5 crop factor on the d7100 ,looks good in theory no gain in practise.and definitely no gain in i/q
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
tried that one last year when i was on nikon ,after doing lots of tests with the help of a pro -friend of mine ,we worked out that if you just cropped a image from a d7000 to the same size as a full frame image from the v1 you just end up with identical pictures ,its more a illusion of the mind than a reality ,same as the 1.5 crop factor on the d7100 ,looks good in theory no gain in practise.and definitely no gain in i/q
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I realise that, but I was looking for the cheapest way to get reach.
The V1 and converter cost me less than £200, and will allow me to have a play with shooting wildlife, rather than spending on a D7100 or whichever crop camera.
If I find it's something I enjoy, then I will inevitably end up selling the V1 stuff and buying the appropriate gear I need.
On the other hand if I don't enjoy it (or I am really bad at it) I end up with a decentish pocket camera.
Win win for me !
 
if i had kept the v1 i would have gone for there 100mm native v1 lens ,which gives you all the system benefits .imho nikon made a booby when they brought out that convertor as the camera is a neat job in its own right and if they had developed a longer native lens for it they would have made lots of friends .using the convertor gives you range but only centre point a/f .ah well another one bites the dust
 
padders said:
Currently I have a 55-300mm nikon lens, I'm going on a trip to Costa Rica next year and think I need a bit more reach, but budget isn't great so would either:
buy x1.4 kenko or
hire a 150-500mm Sigma
advantages of the first option would be weight however the current lens is quite slow to af
is the Sigma fast?
Click to expand...

I'd also consider a Nikon 300 F/4 and 1.4 teleconverter. I always favour that over my Sigma 150-500.
 
I use a 300mm f2.8 on a 1.3 crop body ,also 1.4 mark II and a 2X MarkIII Converters. Both work well, but always use a hide, when i get time to go shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top